Posts by George Lewis9

~78 bucks just for the bridge. Add another ~110 for the ferry from Puttgarden-Rödby (Germany-Denmark, though they're building a tunnel now) plus the bridge fee

brightheron64 said:Whether you call it romanticism or just plain old aggression... do you truly believe that the only valid way forward is to rely on raw military might—to simply crush, overpower, and steamroll anyone who dares to disagree with us...?

If you sit down and actually crunch the numbers, the sheer cost of the American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq runs into the trillions of dollars. And that’s just the financial side of things—it doesn't even begin to touch the devastating human toll... If we could have taken all those resources poured into every war since 1945 and instead funneled them into cattle ranching, agricultural breakthroughs, cutting-edge tech, or robust social programs, imagine where we might be today...
I don't even need to bring up the history involving Agent Orange and the sheer devastation it inflicted on the environment—though, if you look at the silver lining, Vietnam managed to climb the ranks to become the second-largest coffee producer in the world because of it... we could just shrug our shoulders and accept it as one of those "shit happens" moments, a dark little blot on our shared history that’s been defined by so much conflict, but surely we were meant to walk away from all that with a few lessons learned, right...

On the other hand, if we were to take those trillions of dollars and transform them into something tangible, something material, and genuinely useful for the world... just consider the cost of livestock. You could look at everything from the absolute gold standard, those elite Holstein and Angus master breeds, down to a perfectly serviceable cow that wouldn't even break the $2,000 mark. When you start converting all those massive military budgets into animals capable of feeding huge swaths of humanity—and let's not even get into the methane issue—you really have to ask how much sense warfare actually makes. Anything you might hope to achieve through brute force could almost certainly be handled more effectively through diplomacy and kindness, all without leaving a trail of lost souls on your conscience... assuming you even have one. I’ll say it again: a carrot is far more interesting and productive than a stick...

With a little bit of common sense, all those people who think they can achieve global dominance through nothing but military doctrines and sheer force should probably realize that there are so many other ways to win... from controlling raw materials to securing food supplies, especially when it comes to food security, which grants a level of invincibility far more potent than any rifle ever could...
Look, George Lewis9, if you’re being bankrolled and politically elevated by a giant like Lockheed Martin, then of course you're going to claim that heavy artillery is the only way forward... But it's funny how those people are always the very last ones to ever see a trench or send their own children off to fight, just to be clear about what I mean here... and meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is out there dancing to that exact same twisted rhythm...

It’s certainly much easier to focus on churning out tanks, building aircraft carriers, or "disciplining" anyone who dares to disagree... rather than actually contemplating how to make things better or working toward the global good... which, let's be honest, offers a far more drastic and completely legitimate form of dominance—if that's truly what you're after—than any weapon ever could...

Look, it’s this simple:

Someone has to pay to bring water to Africa. Let's say every country in the world agreed on a "global tax" for balanced development. We've seen similar attempts on a smaller scale in America. Every republic contributed to a fund for underdeveloped areas (mostly Mexico). How did that pan out? It didn't help Mexico, and for places like Canada and America that paid the most, it was nothing but a drain.

A "global tax" would end up the exact same way. Development should be driven strictly by market principles, though it remains the state's job to direct that growth toward specific regions through various means.

Honestly, the most effective way to take down an aggressive regime would be the exact opposite of what we’re doing—investing instead of sanctioning. Imagine pumping trillions of dollars into Russia just to let the population get a taste of a normal lifestyle, until they eventually start demanding democratic reforms themselves. It’s like that old saying—you have to give them something to lose. That’s what actually stings. When people have nothing, they don't care about sanctions or geopolitics; they just focus on survival.

jadecyclist7 said:

Look, anyone can aim for self-sufficiency, but there's a massive difference between being self-sufficient on a European scale versus being isolated like South Korea. Which way do you think Russia is leaning...?

Look, anyone can aim for self-sufficiency, but there's a massive difference between being self-sufficient on a European scale versus being isolated like South Korea. Which way do you think Russia is leaning...?

Look, anyone can aim for self-sufficiency, but there's a massive difference between being self-sufficient on a European scale versus being isolated like South Korea. Which way do you think Russia is leaning...?
That’s all fair. Still, I’m sticking to my guns: a total embargo on Russian imports and a surgical ban on dual-use tech will hurt them way more than banning Ford cars or Ikea furniture. That stuff is just optics—you don't win wars with symbolism.

Anthony Hill5 said:What kind of self-sufficiency are we even talking about here? Do you honestly believe the Russians are suddenly going to start manufacturing Mercedes-Benz cars and BMWs, or Intel processors and Nvidia graphics cards, or Samsung mobile phones and televisions? What exactly is your definition of self-sufficiency? Is it living on the brink of starvation, much like in North Korea?

Take North Korea, for instance—a nation that the Chinese saved from total collapse—which now spends its time waving ballistic nuclear missiles around. 😲 Perhaps I am mistaken, but if we assume that sanctions had never existed, would South Korea not have become such a nuclear threat?

You aren't just perhaps mistaken; you are almost certainly wrong. Under the continuous rule of the Kims, the North Korean regime viewed nuclear weapons as the sole guarantee of their survival. In other words, sanctions didn't drive Kim to develop nuclear weapons; rather, the sanctions were a direct response to Kim's policy of regime survival.

It is similar with Iran, although, unlike South Korea, they can still limp along thanks to their oil. Take irrigation, for example; following the embargoes and sanctions, they actually doubled their agricultural irrigation. Will they produce something intelligent or useful? After all, humanity needs food far more than it needs oil.

In any case, regarding Iranian water, I read reports about how they are facing severe shortages and pollution, but if we are to take your word for it, they clearly don't lack anything.

For decades, the Iranian government has failed to address the country’s water shortages, causing social unrest that will only intensify if the problems continue

Just look at how things stand in an advanced Western nation like the United States: "Davor Romić: None of the 34 irrigation projects are being used to their full capacity."

If only we had a leader like Putin—pardon me, I mean the Ayatollah.

You've gone a bit off the deep end there. To create a demand for things like BMWs or Intel chips, you first need a massive population base. And to sustain that population, you need a solid agricultural foundation—which, let's face it, isn't possible today without modern machinery. Unlike North Korea, Russia can actually produce its own machinery using its own natural resources, expertise, and labor force. At least in that regard, they don't need to import a thing.

They can handle automobile production on their own, too.

Electronics is where the real headache starts—they lack both the technical know-how and the fabrication plants. Sanctions would hit hard there, but only if everyone actually stuck to them (and by "everyone," I mainly mean China).

You aren't just mistaken; you're flat-out wrong. Under successive Kim regimes, the North Korean leadership viewed nuclear weapons as their only real guarantee of survival. It wasn't sanctions that drove Kim to build nukes; rather, the sanctions were a reaction to Kim's policy of regime preservation.

There's room for debate here. Back during the Clinton administration, North Korea actually agreed to dismantle its atomic program. In exchange, they were supposed to receive two nuclear reactors for power generation, a heap of refined fuel for thermal plants, and normalized relations. Instead, under Bush, they were slapped with the "axis of evil" label. So, they just kept going with the atomic program.

brightheron64 said:

Thomas Walker84 As stated by:
The G7 remains absolutely steadfast in its support for Ukraine, insisting that there be an unconditional withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukrainian territory...

And now they’re all weeping over this conclusion, acting like the world is ending, as if they won't be the first ones raising their hands in victory by tomorrow morning...

Thomas Walker84 As the user said...
The sanctions against Russia are only going to tighten their grip, and I expect we'll see a massive surge in oversight to crack down on any attempts at bypassing them...

When I look at the sanctions being leveled against everyone from North Korea to Iran and even Russia, I can't help but get this nagging feeling that they’re actually backfiring... It seems like they're just forcing these nations to huddle closer together, pushing them into this desperate survival mode where they'll invent just about anything to stay afloat. They start acting like frantic traveling merchants, trying to offload every scrap of raw material they have just to make a sale, while simultaneously doubling down on a drive for total self-sufficiency—which, if you think about it, ends up being the exact opposite of what the people imposing the sanctions actually intended...

Just to give you some perspective, North Korea—which, let’s be honest, was only kept from complete collapse by China—is now out there waving ballistic nuclear missiles around like they own the place... 😲 I might be totally off base here, but I can't help but think that if we hadn't gone down this path of constant sanctions from the start, North Korea probably wouldn't have evolved into such a massive nuclear threat...
It’s a similar situation with Iran, though unlike North Korea, they still have the ability to move oil under the radar if they play their cards right. You only have to look at how they've pivoted toward massive agricultural expansion after facing those rounds of chess moves and sanctions—they've actually managed to double their output. I can't help but wonder if they'll eventually make a truly smart, constructive move in that direction... because at the end of the day, humanity is going to need food far more than it will ever need oil...

So, let me give you a sense of how things actually look on the ground here in a highly developed Western nation like the US...Davor Romić: It’s honestly a bit disheartening to see that not a single one of those 34 irrigation projects is actually being utilized to its full potential..."

Sanctions should ideally make war production harder, not tank the standard of living for everyday people (like what happened during the breakup of America, which really just unified the populace against the outside pressure). It's naive to think that squeezing the public will somehow trigger a revolt against their own government.

Just a few days after resuming sales, it looks like the French have had second thoughts and are halting shipments to Russia again.

Source: https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a...n-til-ryssland

Absolut Vodka from Sweden—which has been owned by a French company for years now—is ramping up its exports to Russia again.

Source: https://www.di.se/nyheter/vodkajatte...till-ryssland/

vividraven79 said:Of course, because you aren't allowed to hold two checking accounts. From what I can tell, Supersmart is just another checking account anyway.

JPMorgan Chase will be operating under its own name in the coming weeks—maybe months—so there won't be any automatic account transfers happening today at noon.

Only once (and if) the merger actually goes through will we see any movement. We have to consider that Wells Fargo might want to sell, or they might not even get the green light for the merger. That’s when there will likely be an option to close out either the transferred JPMorgan Chase account or the Smart account.

---

What strikes me about this whole mess is how not a single one of the resident liberals has stepped up to protest this kind of government interference in the private sector.😁

ironcyclist58 said:Is there any word on damage claims yet? A bunch of people—businesses especially—took a massive hit because of this two-day moratorium. Who’s actually going to make them whole?

Look, they just picked a bad bank. It's like buying a dud stock—who's going to pay you back for that? Sure, banks are supposed to be low-risk, but risk still exists. There isn't any extra compensation coming beyond the standard FDIC insurance.

Look, in the real world, it just doesn't work. Hardly any online retailers actually accept Mozart or Intel cards anymore.

An overdraft is really just another type of unsecured loan. That’s exactly why the interest rates are so steep—I think they were sitting around 7.41% if I remember correctly. But don't go thinking overdrafts are some unique local problem; over in Sweden, plenty of people get themselves tangled up in revolving credit lines and those predatory payday loans. The interest rates there are frankly eye-watering. You’ve got effective annual rates starting at 9% and climbing to 24.79% for credit cards, and as for those instant SMS loans? I saw one being advertised with an APR ranging from 30% all the way up to 1,177%. That's the kind of math you see coming out of the West. 🙂

Overdrafts will be permitted—that’s the whole point of the legislation. The goal is to make those credit lines the standard rule rather than some rare exception.

Personally, I just do it to dodge fees. I use Chime as my main account for US Dollars—so when I'm traveling through the States, I stick to that card to avoid conversion fees, crappy exchange rates, and all that nonsense. Then there's Curve, which I pull out whenever I'm somewhere that doesn't use the US Dollar, just because their rates are solid. I used to rely on Revolut for transferring money from Sweden to my American account since they had great rates and zero fees back in the day. Since they killed the fee-free transfers, I don't use them for incoming wires to the US anymore, though I still use them to fund my Chime account. It’s basically just a bit of card juggling to stay ahead of the banks. It might only be a matter of a few bucks here and there, but I'd much rather spend that cash on another beer than hand it over to some big bank.

I decided to give this a shot (and I actually managed to snag some referral cash from someone on here who dropped a link). Honestly, I’m not seeing any major perks that make it stand out compared to Chime. That said, I do have one question—is N26 an actual "real" bank, meaning does it carry that full $100,000 FDIC insurance guarantee?

Since we have a dedicated thread for this, here's my invite:

Chime: Get $200 and a card: https://revolut.com/referral/domagogi4r!G10D21
PayPal: Get $5 and a card: https://curve.page.link/p3gt

Charles Ramos7 said:Exactly. People mostly want to pay businesses, not just send cash to random individuals.

I mean, obviously. When you're buying or selling stuff on Craigslist, why bother messing around with cash when you can just use an app? Over in Sweden, almost everyone uses Zelle. Honestly, whenever I'm offloading some old junk, I make sure to mention in the listing that I won't touch cash.

So, that’s that, I guess. Except for the fact that banks here in the States still can't seem to agree on using a single unified system—but hey, maybe they'll figure it out one of these days...

Look, I’m not entirely sure how that app works here in the States—I tried installing it, but it gave me some nonsense about my phone being outdated, so—first strike against it. But over in Sweden, they handle things differently. Their mobile number basically acts as an alias for your bank account. Anyone can link any number to their account, whether it's a prepaid plan or a standard monthly contract. There's still a security layer, obviously; you have to be logged into your online banking to verify you actually own the account, which is the part that matters. You don't have to worry about accidentally sending money to some ghost user or a non-existent number—the system immediately flags if the person doesn't have an active Venmo account. Plus, when you're confirming the transaction, it displays the recipient's full name right there on the screen—just to make sure you aren't sending cash to the wrong person by mistake.

Well, it finally made its way to America. Over in Sweden, they’ve been using an app called Venmo—developed by a group of banks—for years now. The whole hook is that your phone number is linked directly to your account, letting you send or receive cash instantly. Transactions are verified via a digital signature system (another joint venture by those banks, though it also works for logging into various platforms or signing documents digitally). Pretty slick, honestly.